Why do people act like skin color is the ultimate metric of beauty? The face is

Why do people act like skin color is the ultimate metric of beauty? The face is.

The darker girl with curlier hair is much prettier because of her face. If colorism really exists in some communities makes no sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=JmY0_l6BNPc
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359003
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This is true

hi leddit

Pale skin is associated with sickness and considered unattractive

I want to fuck Amara La Negra

any other than white and yellow is disgusting.

i'm not even get hard if i try to jerk of to black porn

LOWTEST
O
W
T
E
S
T

Pale skin is associated with not working the fields and considered attractive

...

>having 3rd world normie taste

i dont say its bad to like black(shit) skin but i cannot recognize it attractive.

probably males generally attracted to lighter skinned females because female requires higher UV absorption due to child bearing ability

Humans want a strong healthy partner to have strong healthy children, scrawny albino people are neither strong nor healthy

>cherrypicks images
>cherrypicks women
>implying the "face" you like isn't "face with white features"

>white features

>Such a thing existing

>Flag

makes sense

>Why do people act like skin color is the ultimate metric of beauty?
Who does that?

Latin countries

Are you retarded or just pretending?

The white standard of skin beauty is light but not sickly pale like a Mediterranean.

Jamaica
m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=JmY0_l6BNPc

Unironically no such thing as white features as you guys mean half the time

People from the Caucasus, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia have the same shit

Wew lad I guess you aren’t pretending.

not an argument

Only black Americans do that since they're insecure about their skin colour and the white admixture some have.

What skin bleaching happens all across Asia, Caribbean and Africa you twat

>Clack woman is best woman
>posts pic of woman full of make up to look like they have white features

The only attractive white women are the ones with Asian or Black features.

They are both ugly niggers

Is that why everyone in the would wants to be white?

>when I bleach I'm whiter than actual white people
>still has flat ass ape nose and features

kek

They want to be white but not pale, picture an Italian or Spaniard, the med skin tone is the white beauty standard.

This is definitely true here. Most hygiene products have some sort of whitening agent in them.

Women need lots of vitamin D during pregnancy, ergo the paler women in a population will be considered more attractive.

America is not the world

He's not wrong, pictured is a mix of Mexican and Japanese, other than her hair and epicanthic eyefolds she's a good match for what most would consider European standards of beauty. You could also easy post examples from the horn of Africa, Central or South East Asia, etc. There's some good matches for Amerindians but since most are mixed we can't post them without some autist claiming it must be due exclussively to European admixture. Conversely there's a lot of Euros with rather unatractive features and who deviate strongly from traditional beauty standards.

In adition there's pressure to conform to cultural European standards regarding how people present themselves, meaning many people around the world are trying to conform to aesthetics developed in Europe and not traditional to them, the hair of sub Saharan Africans is a good example, it's beautiful when properly styled but many women end up screwing their hair trying to straighten it, if you add socio-economic factors to the mix reality is a lot of people end up looking worse than they should. For every latina that looks awesome with dyed blonde hair there's usually a dozen who end up looking worse.

Neither of them are attractive, OP.

You're alluding to Caucasoid features, but Amerindians and southeast Asians definitely don't have them.

I don't find black girls attractive due to their facial structure not because of their skin colour. They also have shit hair.

"caucasoid" features are derivated from negrito neighbours.

Amerindians having "caucasoid" skull and pseudocaucasoid features according to all XIX and XX anthropologists, which made them suppose that white people reached America, is a fact.

There is no such thing as "caucasoid" feature. It primarily is inherited by other populations that occupied several continents, not only the caucasus.

Naturally thinking people want their children and grandchildren to resemble them as they have for the entirety of human history and millennium before and there is nothing wrong with it

literally has nothing to do with the discussion at hand you autistic child

I'm aluding to objective European beauty standards, in women that's high cheekbones, a v shaped jawline, small upturned botton nose, heart shaped lips, the girl I posted also has a light skin complexion and probably rosey lips (it's hard to tell in the modern era due to the widespread use of lip gloss, same as with blush) she's got big eyes, facial symnetry, a slender neck and and a thin build which are universal standards of beauty, she does arguably lack large breasts and wide hips which as secondary sexual characteristics are also universal.

This guy is right, while Amerindians mostly originated from what would later become East Asian peoples they also got something like a third of their genome from a common ancestor to Europeans, this explains those earlier observations. The whole world is built upon clinal (gradual) variations, not cutoff points between opposites.

>There is no such thing as "caucasoid" feature.

Wouldn't results like this be impossible then?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359003

"The Europeans occupied an intermediate position"

What's your point, Mr. frogposter?

pls stop posting

>posts a mulatto

What? the point was about skin tone not purity

kys

That demonstrating clinal variation for some random arbitrary trait hardly means all others follow in kind on the same axis, sin tone being a good example as it usually varies in function of latitude.The study is further not a measure of cephalic index, which was the factor generally used in defining caucasoids as a group. As you can see in the map on
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index
Mesoamericans in Mexico were on the same range as Finns and Russians, does that mean they're caucasoids? Wasn't your whole point Amerindians and South East Asians, for both of whom there's populations with that particular trait, did not have caucasoid features?

Or were you talking the specific facial traits I was adressing or what exactly do you mean?

The whole point to the thread is beauty standards, not whiteness

You know you only encourage me to do it more, don't you?

ugly as fuck

That's subjective isn't it? Given she makes a living as an international top model I'm rather inclined to think your wouldn't be a popular opinion.

looks like a pale injun
still would though

Literally no one knows who the fuck she is. She's not Adriana Lima that's for sure.

I'm talking working for say Italian Vogue, not mainstreaming via Victoria's Secret but fair enough, I get it the board's standards are set by blacked.com

Models aren't objectively beautiful, they're just unique looking. Some aren't either and are just there cause they're rich instagram thots (like Kendall Jenner).

Average blacked girl is indeed better looking

It's not colour of skin that determines beauty, but symmetry and facial features.

Models are pleasing to look at regardless of their own particular aesthetics, they're (generally) thin women in prime reproductive age with no obvious physical defects, I think it would be hard to argue they're not beautiful even if you may discount some as having exotic looks which would be entirely your thing.

I personally don't like the American reality stars doing modeling, I find them rather vulgar, but I wouldn't argue they're not atractive women.

If you want to talk "objective" beauty then I've made my argument here

Why is colorism a thing, then

Because some features are expected from skin colour. When you see a brown skin, your mind already paints a face of a MENA or a Latino person. If you see a black skin, you paint up an African face.

But when someone has features similar to what you thing it's beautiful (for most of us, European Caucasoid), that person will be considered beautiful.

Now, in Mauretania things are different. The fatter = the better, and certainly with African features. A girl like Barbara Palvin, for example, would be laughed on instead of courted.

If you're talking about East Asians, Caucasians, and Sub-Saharan Africans, it's not really clinal variation at all. There are large discontinuities. Why would you expect anything else when examining populations that have been separated for 10s of thousands of years? If there was a smooth continuum between the three categories, you wouldn't be able to reliably pick them apart or draw clear distinctions, but anthropologists can do so easily.

19th century beliefs aren't terribly relevant, and this is only about morphology, not beauty (which is obviously more subjective).

Because the white color is associated with purity. And white skin highlights facial features better than darker tones so by association the face is more likely to be noticed too.

Also dark skin is a manly color because it's the men that work outside most of the time (agriculture, masonry, etc.).

YOU KNOW, AS THEY SAY


THE DARKER THE BERRY, THE SWEETER THE JUICE, THE PURER THE OIL, THE HIGHER THE MILEAGE. THE BLACKER THE SHADOW, THE DEEPER THE HOLE GOES. ETC.

Fine let's use that then

I am discussing beauty standards, not races, my original point being some of the traits and features associated with traditional European norms are not necessarily exclussive to Europeans.

You make a good point on how variation can also be discontinuous but as general rule this effect tends to be blended out, there isn't much of a gap for distribution to resistance to malaria for obvious reasons and while there's very strictly endogamous populations most are not, that's why going through the levant from Anatolia to Arabia people generally tend to get darker as you move south, even if yes, there's population pockets and exceptions, and why moving from Europe to East Asia you come to a point where populations seem to share in the traits of both the extremes.

People mix with their neighbours and populations move from adjoining regions, you don't have natural distribution in North America for instance and yet as rule, going from Canada to Mexico the further south you move the darker the general population is, the US-Mexico border isn't a cut off point, there's plenty of Mexicans in US border states and the further away you move from the border going north, while yes, there obviously are exceptions, the less frequently you'll see them.

>typical asian straight hair
>epicanthic folds
>flat upper nose
>slight prognathism
Nah that's a typical asiatic face.

>>typical asian straight hair
>>epicanthic folds
Yeah, I sepcifically mentioned those
>flat upper nose
Kinda goes hand in hand with epicanthic eyefolds but fair enough
>slight prognathism
Not beyond the range for Caucassians, this is a barely noticeable trait except in extremes for relatively very few populations

That's already too much features that make her not European looking.

Sucks to be you.